In the United States. - The statute of Geo. II. was not generally recognized as a part of the common law in this country, and some of our earlier decisions held that it was necessary to follow the common-law form of indictment. But at the present time a large majority of the states have statutes which agree substantially with the statute of Geo. II., and in some cases the exact phraseology of that enactment has been copied.2 2. Following Words of Statute. These statutes not only define the crime substantively, but also prescribe the essential allegations, and an indictment which follows the words of the statute will be held sufficient.3 tion, etc., was taken, made, signed, or subscribed, without setting forth the bill, answer, information, indictment, declaration, or any part of any pro ceeding, either in law or in equity, and without setting forth the commission or authority of the court or person before whom such offense was committed." 1. State v. Hanson, 39 Me. 337; State 2. Gallimore, 2 Ired. L. (N Car.) 372; State v. Hayward, 1 Nott & M. (S. Car.) 546; Lamden v. State, 5 Humph. (Tenn.) 83; State v. Smith, 63 Vt. 201; Fitch v. Com., 92 Va. 824. In Virginia it was held that an indictment for perjury in swearing to a bill in chancery must set out the entire bill and answer. Com. v. Lodge, 2 Gratt. (Va.) 580. 2. Rev. Stat. U. S., 1878, § 5396. —“ In every presentment or indictment prosecuted against any person for perjury, it shall be sufficient to set forth the substance of the offense charged upon the defendant, and by what court and before whom the oath was taken, averring such court or person to have competent authority to administer the same, together with the proper aver ment to falsify the matter wherein the perjury is assigned, without setting forth the bill, answer, information, indictment, declaration, or any part of any record or proceeding, either in law or equity, or any affidavit, deposition, or certificate, other than as hereinbefore stated, and without setting forth the commission or authority of the court or person before whom the perjury was committed." The requirements of this section are not dispensed with by section 1025 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that no indictment in a federal court shall be deemed insufficient, nor the proceedings thereon be affected, by any defect in matter of form only which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant. Markham. U. S., 160 U. S. 319. Under the Act of North Carolina, 1889, c. 83, an indictment which simply alleges that the defendant did commit perjury, pointing out the name of the court and of the action in which it is alleged to have been committed and the words sworn to by the defendant, is sufficient. The effect of the act is not to change, in any respect, the constituent elements of perjury, nor the nature or mode of proof. It only relieves the state from charging in the indictment the details, or rather the definition, of the offense, and makes it sufficient to allege that the defendant unlawfully committed perjury. State v. Flowers, 109 N. Car. 841; State v. Gates, 107 N. Car. 832; State J. Peters, 107 N. Car. 876. Statutory Crime of False Swearing. — The provisions of the Penal Code of Kentucky as to the requisites of an indictment for perjury do not apply to an indictment for false swearing, it being sufficient in such an indictment to charge that the accused wilfully and knowingly deposed or gave in evidence that which was false, in a matter which was judicially pending, or on a subject concerning which he could be legally sworn, or was required to be sworn. Richey v. Com., 81 Ky. 524. 3. Alabama. Walker v. State, 96 Ala. 53; Brown v. State, 47 Ala. 47; Williams v. State, 68 Ala. 551; Peterson v. State, 74 Ala. 34. California. Cal. 487. People v. Parsons, 6 3. Concluding Averment. At common law the indictment closed with a formal allegation to the effect that" so the accused did commit wilful and corrupt perjury." But this concluding averment is not necessary under the modern statutes. 1 4. Innuendo. Where the meaning of the testimony alleged to be false is not apparent from the bare statement thereof, an explanatory clause, as" meaning thereby," etc. (setting forth the meaning of the testimony), should be inserted. 2 5. Subornation of Perjury. The subornation of perjury is made a distinct criminal offense by the statutes of many of the states. Indictments for this offense should contain all the allegations of an indictment for perjury, and in addition thereto allegations that the accused procured another person to give the false testimony, and that it was so given.3 In West Virginia it is not sufficient that an indictment for perjury charges the offense in the exact words of the statute. All the facts and circumstances should be set forth with such particularity and certainty as to give the accused reasonable notice of what he is to defend himself against. Stofer v. State, 3 W. Va. 689. 1. U. S. v. Wood, 44 Fed. Rep. 753; Henderson v. People, 117 Ill. 265. If the indictment is sufficient in other respects it is not necessary that the accused be charged with having 'committed perjury in hæc verba. Massie v. State, Tex. App. 81. After Stating the Facts Which Constitute Perjury it is not necessary that the indictment should charge in terms that the defendant did commit perjury. U. S. v. Wood, 44 Fed. Rep. 753. v. Hoyle, 6 Ired. L. (N. Car) 1; State v. Peters, 107 N. Car. 876. The Phrase "the Jurors Aforesaid," when used in the conclusion of an indictment, refers to the grand jury by whom the indictment was found, and not to a certain jury of the country before whom the defendant is alleged to have committed perjury. Com. v. Kelly, 123 Mass. 417. 2. Rex v. Aylett, 1 T. R. 69. Illustrations of the Rule. The charge, on an affidavit before a justice of the peace, that M. and P. took and feloniously carried away a certain hog is in legal import a charge of larceny, and in charging perjury upon such an affidavit an innuendo that the hog was feloniously taken, stolen, and carried away is proper. State v. Lea, 3 Ala. 602. An indictment alleged that it was a material issue in a certain trial whether the defendant had paid money to the accused on September 11, 1894, at his place in M. township, and that the defendant had testified: "I paid it on the 11th of September." It was held proper under these circumstances to aver by innuendo that the defendant by such testimony meant that he had paid the accused the money on September 11, 1894, and that it was for the jury to say whether such was in fact the meaning of the testimony. People v. German, 110 Mich. 244. 3. Coyne v. People, 124 Ill. 17; Com. v. Stone, 152 Mass. 498; State v. Howard, 137 Mo. 289; Elkin v. People, 28 N. Y. 177; Watson v. State, Tex. App. II; State v. Simons, 30 Vt. 620. Joinder of Counts. A charge of subornation of perjury and one of perjury An Attempt to Suborn Perjury is also a statutory crime in many jurisdictions, and an indictment for that offense should follow the form of the statute.1 III. PROCEEDING IN WHICH OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED - 1. In General. Since false swearing which is purely voluntary does not constitute perjury, the indictment for this offense should show that the false oath was taken in a judicial proceeding, and before a court or magistrate having authority to administer oaths.2 At Common Law the nature of the action wherein the perjury was committed was made apparent by setting forth in the indictment the pleadings therein.3 may be joined in the same indictment. Com. v. Devine, 155 Mass. 224; State v. Lea, I Coldw. (Tenn.) 175. Allegations Requisite in the Indictment. -An indictment which charges that the defendant did suborn and procure a witness to testify falsely in certain proceedings is sufficient. It is not necessary to describe the means employed to induce the witness to give the false testimony. "It is quite immaterial what means he used, whether in themselves illegal or not. The crime does not inhere in the method or means, but in the result." State v. Porter, 105 Iowa 677. But it must be expressly charged that the suborned witness did testify. State v. Leach, 27 Vt. 317. In Kansas an indictment is sufficient where it alleges that the defendant did unlawfully, wilfully, corruptly, and feloniously persuade and incite, procure, and suborn the wilful or corrupt perjury alleged. It need not be averred that the perjury was committed by reason of the persuasion, procurement, and subornation of the defendant. State v. Geer, 48 Kan. 752. Averment of Knowledge by Defendant. The indictment must aver that the defendant knew that the testimony procured to be given was false, and that in giving such testimony the wit ness would wilfully and corruptly commit the crime of perjury. U. S. v. Dennee, 3 Woods (U. S.) 39; Stewart v. State, 22 Ohio St. 477. 1. Rivers v. State, 97 Ala. 72; Nicholson. State, 97 Ga. 672; State v. Biebusch, 32 Mo. 276. The indictment for attempting to procure another to commit perjury need not allege that the defendant incited or solicited another to commit perjury. It is sufficient to aver that he offered another a valuable consideration for that purpose. Stratton v. People, 81 N. Y. 629. But an indictment is defective where it alleges that the testimony was procured to be given in a prospective suit, and not in a case actually pending. State v. Joaquin, 69 Me. 218. The indictment need not set forth specifically the fact to which the defendant attempted to procure the witness to swear. State v. Holding, I McCord L. (S. Car.) 31. Not a Generic Term. Attempting to suborn perjury is not the generic name of any class of offenses, and where the information charges such offense in those terms, without anything more, except that the defendant endeavored to procure another person to swear falsely and commit perjury in a specified case, it is insufficient. People v. Thomas, 63 Cal. 482. In In Indiana it was held that an indictment under the statute defining combinations to commit felonies must specify the felony which was proposed. State v. McKinstry, 50 Ind. 465. this case the court said: "It will be seen by an examination of the indictment that the alleged purpose of the union and combination was not the commission of perjury, but, if any purpose was charged, it was unlawfully to prevent the course of justice and secure the acquittal of said McKinstry of the charges contained in said information.' Perjury, to be sure, was the means to have been employed to accomplish the purpose, but the alleged purpose was that above stated.' 2. Jacobs v. State, 61 Ala. 448; State 7. Owen, 73 Mo. 440; Finch v. U. S., I Okla. 396; Anderson v. State, 18 Tex. App. 17; State v. Chamberlin, 30 Vt. 559. 3. State v. Hoyle, 6 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 1; State v. Stillman, 7 Coldw. (Tenn.) 341. Under the Statutes of the various states, however, this practice is no longer followed, but such statutes do not dispense with the necessity of a direct averment that the perjury was committed in the course of a judicial proceeding.2 1. In North Carolina it has not been necessary, since the statute of 1842, to set forth in the indictment the pleadings in the case in which the perjury is alleged to have been committed. State v. Hoyle, 6 Ired. L. (N. Car.) 1. But if they are set forth, it seems that they must be proved as laid. State v. Ammons, 3 Murph. (N. Car.) 123. Variance. In Brown v. State, 47 Ala. 47, the indictment for perjury set out in full the indictment of the action in which perjury was assigned; but the evidence tended to prove that the original action was of a character entirely different from that set forth in the indictment, and it was held that the variance was fatal. 2. Com. v. Warden, 11 Met. (Mass.) 406; Com. v. Hillenbrand, 96 Ky. 407; State v. McCone, 59 Vt. 117; Reg. v. Gardiner, 8 C. & P. 737, 34 E. C. L. 611; Reg. v. Overton, 4 Q. B. 83, 45 E. C. L. 83. In Kansas the following allegation has been held insufficient: "Said affidavit being used in affecting and setting aside the entry of B. F. Teal to the land mentioned in said affidavit." It does not appear from such an aver ment that the false testimony was given in " any cause, matter, or proceeding before any court, tribunal. public body, or officer." State v. Ayer, 40 Kan. 43. In Maine the allegation "by falsely swearing to material matter in a writing signed by him was held to be insufficient, even though such an averment might be sanctioned by the legislature. It did not apprise the accused of the charge against him. State v. Mace, 76 Me. 64. In Wisconsin it was said in State v. Lamont, 2 Wis. 437: "The indictment does not set forth that the affidavit was made for the purpose of obtaining a writ of replevin, nor that any judicial proceeding was pending in respect to which the oath was taken. It is essential that the indictment should show that legal proceedings were pending, or that the affidavit itself was the commencement of legal proceedings." The Code of North Carolina, § 1092, provides for the punishment of perjury committed in any suit, controversy, matter, or cause. Where perjury is committed on the examination on warrant of a person charged with selling liquor without a license, an indictment is sufficient if it charges that the perjury was committed by taking a false oath at the "trial of an action," etc. State v. Peters, 107 N. Car. 876. In Vermont, in State v. Baker, 64 Vt. 355, it was alleged that the accused, who was convicted of intoxication, swore falsely on his examination before a justice of the peace concerning the place where he obtained the liquor. The Acts of 1890, No. 29, § 1, prescribe a certain form of indictment for perjury committed by witnesses in testifying in a proceeding in which there are parties, and before a tribunal of competent jurisdiction; and (section 3 prescribes another form for perjury committed before a person or persons, or before a board consisting of more than one person. It was held that the indictment in this case should have been framed under section 3, since the proceeding was not a trial between parties; and also that the phrase " person or persons" properly included a judge Perjury Committed on Trial for a Felony. - In some jurisdictions perjury committed on the trial of an indictment for felony is more severely punished than in other cases. Where this is so the indictment must show the nature of the cause in which the perjury was committed.1 2. Name of Action. The Proceeding Should Be Identified by charging its legal name, as, for example, that it was a trial for murder, or an action of ejectment; and the matter at issue must be averred with sufficient clearness to inform the person accused of perjury of the exact nature of the charge against him. The indictment mony before a grand jury, the indictment need not contain any allegation concerning the guilt or innocence of the person whose offense was being investigated, nor need the circumstances of that offense be described. These details are matters of inducement, and are not essential elements of the crime of perjury. State v. Schill, 27 lowa 263. 1. Hinch v. State, 2 Mo. 158; Reg. v. Castro, L. R. 9 Q. B. 350. And the same is true in Wisconsin under Rev. Stat. 1898, § 4471, defining two grades of subornation of perjury. The indictment must state whether the perjury was committed on the prosecution of a capital crime or of some other offense. Thompson v. State, 89 Wis. 253. 2. Harp v. State, 59 Ark. 113; People v. Ah Bean, 77 Cal. 12; Reg. v. Child, 5 Cox C. C. 197; Reg. v. Neville, 6 Cox C. C. 69. The Issues Need Not Be Specifically Described, provided the allegations are sufficient to inform the accused of the charge against him. People v. Grimshaw, 33 Hun (N. Y.) 505; Covey v. State, 23 Tex. App. 388. But Where the Indictment Described the Issue as a trial for grand larceny, and the proof showed that it was a trial for robbery, the variance was held fatal. People v. Strassman, 112 Cal. 633. Assignment Proceedings. That the false swearing was committed in assignment proceedings sufficiently appears from the allegation that the accused, as a part of his assignment, made an inventory purporting to comply in all respects with section 3461 of the Civil Code of California, which requires the inventory to show all the insolvent's creditors; that he collusively and wilfully omitted one of his creditors therefrom; and that he then made an affidavit, in compliance with section Divorce Proceedings Before a Commissioner. An indictment which alleges that a false oath was taken in a proceeding before one A., who had been duly appointed commissioner by the register in chancery, with authority to take the written testimony of the defendant in an action for divorce, the parties to said action and the court in which it was pending being named, is not wanting in reasonable certainty and sufficiently shows the nature of the proceeding under Penal Code Ala., 1886, § 3908. Hicks v. State, 86 Ala. 30. Prosecution for Usury. An indictment stating that the perjury was committed in respect to a question of usury, which had become material on a trial of a cause, has been held sufficiently to describe the issue. And in such a case the indictment need not specify the particular instances in which the usurious interest was exacted. State v. Voorhis, 52 N. J. L. 35I. Examples of Allegations Held Insuffi. cient. A charge that the perjury was committed on the trial of A. under an indictment for burglary is too indefinite. The name of the owner of the property should be given. Davis v. State, 79 Ala. 20. |